How can Peter say this? “Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him…” If a hyperpreterist were standing there, he would say to Peter, “Yeah, but we DO see him. Just look at me.”

Why did Peter say that they don’t “see him”? Because Jesus was BODILY absent. But if Jesus was BODILY absent, then the “body of Christ” can’t equal that of Jesus’ physical body, because the “body of Christ” was standing right in front of Peter..heck, Peter himself is part of that body.

Your view makes all of this language meaningless. If your view is correct, there should have NEVER been any talk of Christ being absent, being gone, leaving, departing, coming back, and so on. Why did Paul desire to depart and “be with Christ” if he was already “with Christ” in same sense? Obviously then, he wasn’t “with Christ” in the same sense that he was “with Christ” while on earth.

Yes, the church has always taught “union with Christ”. But they don’t mean what you mean. You are borrowing the language but denying the meaning. Dr Tipton, in that video, is not teaching what you are teaching. You are hearing the buzz words and reading into it your own view.

Lastly, i don’t “make light of the time statements”. I make light of YOUR interpretation of them. Not a single hyperpreterist, including yourself, has proven that “behold, i am coming soon” means “all prophecy is fulfilled.” Not one, bro.

The “time statements” are limited to specific prophecies, not ALL prophecies. You will not find a single text that incorporates ALL of bible prophecy into a “time statement”.

So, there’s nothing to disprove, because hyperpreterists have yet to prove their case. I have addressed this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df69E-9jim0

Yes, i have read where some consider the Pope to be Christ. Ok…so what does that prove? Only that you are promoting false Roman Catholicism! Your statement that “historic Christianity” has always taught this is too broad to be any good. The Reformed, among many, have explicitly denied this.

You say that Jesus cannot have two bodies. Why not? Sure he can; IF the word “body” is understood in different senses.

Scripture says that me and my wife become “one flesh”… patterned after Christ and the church, right? Let’s press that now to the extent you are: are you now going to tell me that Amanda’s female body is actually me now? She is actually me and i am her? So i married myself? So i’m making out with myself now? lol.

Do i deny that we are “one”? Of course not. But “one” in WHAT SENSE? it surely can’t be the sense in which you speak.

Scripture clearly makes the “distinction” between the two people, even while still in their “oneness”.

Does the body of Christ eat itself in communion?

Come on, bro. Do you not see how absurd this all becomes in order to keep hyperpreterism afloat?

Further, the “rock” in Daniel is not said to be Jesus. The “rock” is the kingdom:

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold.”

The text EXPLICITLY states that the rock that struck and filled the whole earth is the kingdom; not Jesus’ flesh-body.

Ironically, you are reading the bible in almost a dispensational-like hyper-literalism; failing to understand simple metaphoric language.

As for the video…great stuff! Standard orthodoxy. And he says nothing close to what you are suggesting here.

ditch that nonsense, bro. you’re missing out on some rich teaching.”

Here is a non-preterist saying it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEFal5YTn64

If this truth is understood, then the confusion caused by many different views of end time exegesis will go away …. but unfortunately this is not going to happen until the end of this present age is over ….. even during the Lord’s coming hour [time] of trial and judgment against an unbelieving world [many will still not repent and come to the knowledge of the truth]

Here is the thing that one needs to know:

There is nothing of earthly events recorded within the scope of the visions of the Bible prophets between the end of the 69th week [the Lord was cut off] ….. and the beginning of the 70th [the Lord's next intervention] which is still pending …. absolutely nothing

All of what has been said from professing christianity including preterism, reformation theology, amillennialism, and post tribulation theology is false …. all of this

Linnker

I am by no means a scholar, but I have read a few things. And what I’ve read seems to be at odds with what you seem to be implying. For example you write,

“Full-Preterism stems from a period in Christian history known as “Protestant Liberal Theology”(Adolf Harnack-father of the historical-critical method and Neo-Orthodox scholars such as: Karl Barth, Oscar Cullman, Rudolph Bultman, and Emil Brunner). These liberal and Neo-Orthodox theologians all called for sweeping changes to Reformed Protestant Theology. They held to two basic tenets: 1] The reconstructing of traditional Christian Thought. 2] The necessity of discovering Christianity’s true nature apart from the layers of traditional dogma. Historically, the aim was to proclaimed a “new kind of Christian Theology” apart from that which came out of the Protestant Reformation. In other words, an overhaul of the entire Christian theological system.”

It is interesting that you arrived at a similar conclusion which occurred to me a couple of years ago, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4874 albeit I framed it in, I think, a different light. However, what you seem to be blurring concepts I’ve come to understand as distinctly opposed. For example you seem to indicate Bultmann as a neo-orthodox along with Cullman. However, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Bultmann is listed as a Liberal, which means something different than Neo-Orthodox, as far as I know. Also, in this same dictionary, regarding Cullman we are told, “Cullman sought to demythologize Rudolf Bultmann. Mainline German biblical scholarship never gave much of a hearing to Cullmann after Bultmann in 1948 panned his first major book Christ and Time, but Cullmann refused to abandon the struggle to establish the fact that the gospel involves something far more profound than authentic self-understanding as per existentialist thought. Whereas Bultmann could deny miracles and even Christ’s bodily resurrection, yet insist he was not rejecting the New Testament witness, only reinterpreting it for modern people, Cullman crafted careful studies implying that Bultmann’s hermeneutic was de facto disbelief and poor historical reasoning empirically.” (pg. 312)

The issue, it seems to me is captured in your thought, “discovering Christianity’s true nature apart from the layers of traditional dogma.”, which seems to be the suggestion Christianity can stand apart from the doctrines which define what Christianity entails. This then takes me to another statement of yours, “ A Biblical Scholar’s approach is Historical-Critical/Historical-Grammatical and a Theologian’s approach is Theological. It really has to do with their presuppositions.” This statement has a lot packed into it. I’d already asked if, “historical-critical” is to be understood as defined by a view which claims “reality is uniform and universal and that one’s present experience supplies an objective criterion for determining what could or could not have happened in the past.” ? And, is it fair to concluded “historical critical” an “anti-supernatural stance”? Neither of which, I don’t think, would be applied to “historical –grammatical” approach to Scripture. If the answer to my question is in the affirmative then I think the distinction you are drawing in the presuppositions distinguishing the “theological” from the “hermeneutical”, isn’t a matter of “scholarship” per se, forgive me if I read something into what you’ve written, but as Cullmann charged Bultmann with “disbelief”.

IOW, if as Jason pointed out, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” and as Paul explained, “Christ,in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”, (Col 2:2,3) are true, how can the distinction between dogma and Christianities “true nature” be maintained from an intellectually honest perspective? I think you are correct, the issue is one of epistemology, and as I understand it “Liberalism” stemmed from the age of enlightenment which, I believe, had its core tenet a denial of revealed truth and the assumption truth can be determined based on human efforts. Which at the end of the day, it seems to me, is in fact a theological position. Isn’t ones epistemology in fact a theological position?

WHAT ABOUT ROME?
Those who say that harlot Babylon was the city of Rome (the most common identification of Babylon by commentators)8 are being inconsistent with the Bible’s use of the harlot metaphor. Consider the following by Aune. While he sees the harlot as being Rome, he admits that this position is inconsistent with the predominant scriptural use of the harlot motif:

“In the OT the term zana, ‘fornicate, be a prostitute’ is frequently used in a figurative sense of Israel’s faithless behavior toward Yahweh as manifested in her frequent lapses into idolatry. This is based on the analogy of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel and marriage contracts (Lev 17:7; 20:5-6; Num 14:33; 15:39; Deut 31:16; Judg 2:17; 8:27; 1 Chr 5:25; 2 Chr 21:11; Ps 73:27), a metaphor found with particular frequency in the prophets Hosea (1:2; 2:4 [MT:6]; 4:15; 9:1), Jeremiah (2:20; 3:2,9,13: 5:7,11; 13:27), and Ezekiel (6:9; 16; 23; 43:7,9) . . . Considered against this OT background, the metaphor of sexual immorality appears at first sight to have little to do with the author’s condemnation of Babylon-Rome. In a very few places in the OT, however, there are instances in which the commercial trade of a city is described with the metaphor of prostitution . . . doubtless because economic relationships frequently led to the exchange of religious practices (Mic 1:7; Nah 3:4; 2 Kgs 9:22). In Isa 23:17, Tyre’s commercial contacts are called ‘prostitution,’ and the profits of such trade are called ‘the price of a prostitute’ (similar language is used of Nineveh in Nah 3:4). However, the historical context of both Isa 23:17 and Nah 3:4 suggests that neither prophet is interested in Tyre or Nineveh in themselves; rather the prophets condemn the negative influences the cities have exerted on the Near East, particularly on Israel.”9

Aune provides a convincing summation of why the harlot motif speaks of unfaithful Israel and then proceeds to disregard his own evidence! He justifies this because “in a very few places” the motif is used differently. That is a less than convincing argument. Even in the two places where the motif is used differently, he admits the references have more to do with the effects of the harlotry on Israel than either Tyre or Nineveh! Aune at least acknowledges that “the great city” (which is how harlot Babylon is referenced, cf. Rev. 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19) refers to Jerusalem earlier in Revelation. He writes, “The phrase ‘the great city’ occurs in 11:8, where it clearly refers to Jerusalem. This is part of the larger argument advanced by several scholars that Jerusalem, not Rome, is addressed in Rev 18.”10 That the reference to the great city in Revelation would change to a different city makes little sense.

As impressive a work of scholarship as Aune’s commentary on Revelation is (3 volumes, 1,354 pages!), he is making a fundamental mistake by divorcing the interpretation of the image of the harlot in Revelation from its predominant OT usage. To Aune’s credit, he acknowledges that the weight of scriptural evidence comes down strongly on the side of identifying the harlot with unfaithful Israel (something many interpreters ignore or gloss over). It does not make sense that one as steeped in the OT as the author of Revelation is would use the motif of the harlot in a way that is almost totally inconsistent with its OT usage.11 The most important way for one to stay on track in understanding the images in Revelation is to stay as consistent as possible with their use in the rest of Scripture.

It would seem that scholars are so used to telling each other that Babylon is Rome that they are not fazed by the lack of scriptural support. Wright notes that some scholars are actually hostile to anyone who says the harlot is not Rome.

“Recent commentators (e.g., Massyngberde Ford, 1975) have suggested the great and wicked city [of Rev. 17-19] is not Rome but Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 11:8). I have discovered that this suggestion arouses anger in some circles, which is not explained simply as annoyance at an exegetical peculiarity (plenty of those are to be found in all the journals, but they merely arouse curiosity). What is at stake here, and for whom?”12

Saying the harlot is unfaithful Israel is hardly an exegetical peculiarity. It is not a tangential notion driven by the quest for a novel interpretation. Quite to the contrary, given the consistent OT portrayal of the harlot as God’s unfaithful old covenant people, apostate Israel should be the starting point in one’s examination of harlot Babylon. In regard to this, consider one of the conclusions that Wright comes to in his study of the Gospels:

“When we read through the synoptic tradition (and John, for that matter) we find a great deal of warning of coming judgment, in all strands of the traditions, and all pointing in one direction. Jesus, I shall now argue, predicted that judgment would fall on the nation [of Israel] in general and on Jerusalem in particular. That is to say, he reinterprets a standard Jewish belief (the coming judgment which would fall on the nations) in terms of a coming judgment which would fall on impenitent Israel. The great prophets had done exactly the same. Jerusalem, under its present regime, had become Babylon.”13

Wright notes that his conclusion “may be held by some to carry implications for the reading of Rev. 17-19”14 (i.e., that Babylon = Jerusalem). Note that when Jesus speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse, he is using the language from the sixth-century BC destruction of Babylon (cf. Mark 13:24 with Isa. 13:10; in both places cosmic catastrophe is used to symbolize the fall of the respective nations, cf. Rev. 16:10).15 Wright notes the following on this: “This, then, is what it means to say that ‘the sun and moon will be darkened, and the stars will not give their light’ (Mark 13:24). It means ‘Babylon will fall—an earth-shattering event!’”16 Just as ancient Babylon had destroyed God’s Temple and persecuted God’s people, so unfaithful Israel had destroyed God’s ultimate Temple—Jesus—and was persecuting God’s people (Matt. 23:29-38; 1 Thess. 2:14-16; Rev. 17:6; 18:24). As Jesus said to the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19-21; cf. Matt. 12:6; Rev. 21:22).

While identifying the harlot with Jerusalem is essentially correct, it must be remembered that Revelation is dealing in symbols: the harlot-city represents a community of people. As Johnson notes, “John’s use of the word ‘city’ from its first occurrence in 3:12 is symbolic . . . A city may be [used as] a metaphor for the total life of a community of people (Heb. 11:10, 12:22; 13:14).”17 While she was seated in Jerusalem (in the Temple) and was destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the harlot represented all of unfaithful Israel, not just the city of Jerusalem. She is similar to Uncle Sam (a personification of the United States). While it could be said that Uncle Sam is seated in Washington, D.C., he represents all of America, not just the city of Washington.18

REVELATION’S CONTRAST OF TWO WOMEN AS A MEANS OF CONTRASTING
THE TWO COVENANTS
I discussed this earlier, but it is worth mentioning again. Revelation presents us with two women (the harlot and the bride) who are two cities (Babylon and New Jerusalem). These two women/cities are also two wives. While it is obvious that the bride is a wife (Rev. 21:9), it is easy to miss that the harlot is also a wife—a widowed wife (Rev. 18:7; cf. Ezek. 16:32 “You are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband”). The harlot became a widow when she had her husband (Jesus) killed. As I have noted, in Galatians 4:21-31 we are told of two women who are two wives (Hagar and Sarah) who correspond to two cities (physical Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem). We are explicitly told that these two women/cities are symbolic of two communities of people, those under the old covenant and those under the new covenant.

For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants . . . .
Galatians 4:22-24

Revelation is talking about the same subject as Galatians 4:21-31; both are contrasting two “cities” (physical Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem in Galatians; Mystery Babylon and heavenly Jerusalem in Revelation) that are two “wives” (Hagar and Sarah in Galatians, the widowed harlot and the betrothed bride in Revelation). The two contrasting pairs of women of Galatians and Revelation represent the same two communities, those of the old and new covenants. Notice that while the city of Jerusalem is mentioned in Galatians (4:25), it represents all those under the old covenant, not just the city of Jerusalem.

In Revelation, as in Galatians (4:29), one woman persecutes the other (the harlot persecutes the bride, Rev. 17:6). In Revelation, as in Galatians, one of the two women is cast out (the harlot is destroyed, Rev. 18:21) while the other woman receives her inheritance (the Lord takes the bride as his wife). This explains why the very next subject after Babylon is destroyed is the wedding of the bride (Rev. 19:1-19). God allows the individual beast to dispose of his unfaithful wife and then marries his faithful new covenant bride.

This narrative is shown in Matthew 22:1-10 where those who rejected the invitation to the wedding of a king’s son are destroyed and then the wedding goes forward with a different people (cf. Matt. 21:33-45). Just as Babylon is destroyed with fire (Rev. 18:8), so too the furious king “sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city” (Matt. 22:7). This is a clear allusion to the AD 70 fiery destruction of Jerusalem; it was the time that the harlot city was destroyed and the bride became married. Jesus had said that the Jews would be cast out at this time of the full establishment of God’s kingdom (Matt. 8:10-12). Just as in Ezekiel, where the death of the prophet’s wife symbolizes the sixth-century BC destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. 24:15-27), so the death of God’s adulterous old covenant wife in Revelation symbolizes the first-century destruction of the Temple by Titus. Having given an overview of harlot Babylon, I will now examine Revelation 17 in more detail.

Endnotes:
8. Gentry, Navigating the Book of Revelation, 133-34.
9. Aune, Revelation 17-22, 930-31.
10. Ibid., 997. In spite of Jerusalem being designated as “the great city” in Rev.11:8, Aune thinks Rome is “the great city” in Rev. 17-18. The scholars that Aune cites who see Babylon as Jerusalem are the following: Ford, Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Anchor Bible Commentary, 38, 1975, 285-86. A.J. Beagley, The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse with Particular Reference of the Role of the Church’s Enemies BANW 50 (Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1987), 92-102. I. Provan, “Foul Spirits, Fornication and Finance: Revelation 18 from an Old Testament Perspective,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 64 (1996), 81-100.
11. Ultimately the author of Revelation was God, not John.
12. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), footnote 358.
13. Ibid., 322-23.
14. Ibid., 358.
15. See my discussion of the symbolic use of cosmic catastrophe in volume one, 254-60.
16. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 354.
17. Johnson, Revelation, 112.
18. Uncle Sam (initials U.S.) is a personification of the United States. While Uncle Sam is centered in Washington, D.C., he symbolizes all of America, not just Washington. So it is with the harlot in Revelation. She was centered in Jerusalem (in the Temple) but she represented all those of Israel who rejected Jesus, not just the city of Jerusalem (cf. Hos. 1:2).

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom…sounds like a great “ultimate commitment” to me.

My first quibble is with James’ terminology, “fundamentalist perspective of Full-Preterism.” Full-Preterism stems from a period in Christian history known as “Protestant Liberal Theology”(Adolf Harnack-father of the historical-critical method and Neo-Orthodox scholars such as: Karl Barth, Oscar Cullman, Rudolph Bultman, and Emil Brunner). These liberal and Neo-Orthodox theologians all called for sweeping changes to Reformed Protestant Theology. They held to two basic tenets: 1] The reconstructing of traditional Christian Thought. 2] The necessity of discovering Christianity’s true nature apart from the layers of traditional dogma. Historically, the aim was to proclaimed a “new kind of Christian Theology” apart from that which came out of the Protestant Reformation. In other words, an overhaul of the entire Christian theological system.

Likewise, Covenant Eschatology shares in the wish to reconstruct traditional Christian Thought, Theology, and Eschatology-where needed. It is a new kind of Christian Theology apart from that which came out of the Protestant Reformation. For example, proponents of Covenant Eschatology seek to re-frame the entire issue of Soteriology by placing it back into its first-century-covenantal setting. In this way, Covenant Eschatology is Liberal-not orthodox and not fundamental. It is Neo-Neo-Orthodox. Ha! In the academic world when we speak of fundamentalism it is meant, a strict adherence to specific conservative theological orthodox doctrines over and against modern or post-modern Theology.

James poses the question, “Is serious scholarship compatible with the beliefs of “full preterism?” I will address this now. First what is meant by “serious scholarship” or “broad consensus” in scholarship? In academia, it is commonly understood that there is a difference in Theologians and Biblical scholars. A Biblical Scholar’s approach is Historical-Critical/Historical-Grammatical and a Theologian’s approach is Theological. It really has to do with their presuppositions. The claim that Jesus’ is to be understood within an end-of-the-world framework is a near-consensus in mainstream-historical-Jesus scholarship. These scholars share a consensus that Jesus saw no further than 70AD and thought everything would be wrapped up with Israel’s apocalyptic event. However, most concluded that Jesus was nothing more than a failed apocalyptic prophet. Many of these scholars actually agree with me that there will be no consummation to history, no future visible physical manifestation of Christ, no future final judgment of all men and nations, and no future bodily resurrection and transformation of all believers. Why? Is it because they believe in Covenant Eschatology? No! It is because they believe Jesus was a failed prophet! Of course, there are exceptions to this consensus 1] Some, such as Schweitzer, argued for a radical separation between historical research and theology; for him, what Jesus was like as a figure of history was irrelevant to one’s theology. 2] There would certainly not be a consensus among those with different presuppositions, such as, Theologians. Therefore, I do not believe that I am at an “irreconcilable odds with scholarship on these points” and I do not believe that I am against “all” academia. However, “Is serious scholarship compatible with the beliefs of “full-preterism (Covenant Eschatology)?” The answer is no-in that, there are no full-preterist in mainstream scholarship.

What do I mean by I have no “theological bias?” I certainly have a bias, but not a theological one. In fact, I think skepticism is a good thing. Therefore, this is really about Philosophy and Epistemology. An example, I can’t be committed to an historical-critical examination of Christianity, and yet, simultaneously, be committed to either Gordan Clark or Van Tilian (etc…) philosophy or epistemology. My “ultimate commitment”is in following the evidence wherever it leads. Therefore, my method is both Evidential and Empirical. If it leads to an “ultimate commitment” in the Jesus Christ of orthodoxy then great, but for me, it is not the beginning point, but the ending point of my journey.

For Van Til an ultimate commitment to Jesus Christ is necessary and it is not to be surrendered in one’s argumentation/apologetic. It is the beginning point not the ending point. Likewise, Gordan Clark rejected and refuted any epistemological position that ended in skepticism. I am opposite of both Van Til’s and Clark’s position. Therefore, my bias is not theological. In fact, as I have said before, my journey away-from or back-to Orthodoxy is much deeper than Full-Preterism, it really has to do with my philosophical and epistemological positions. Make no mistake about it, I am more compatible with the Protestant Liberal Theology (mentioned above) and that is because of my accepted presuppositions.

Finally, it should be noted that I am not attempting to maintain a full-preterist (Covenant Eschatology) perspective within academia. My commitments first lie in scholarship! My focus is on Historical Jesus Apocalypticism and Second-Temple Judaism. This means that my interaction will be with the problems first presented by Schweitzer and those who so vigorously challenged his notions. Both Max King and Don Preston are some of them. Therefore, I am only interested in researching Covenant Eschatology as it relates to Third-Quest Historical Jesus and the problems that Schweitzer noted.

I am not dogmatic at this point about anything. In other words, I am not so naive as to think that I am going to convert all Vanderbilt Professors and Scholarship to Covenant Eschatology. This attitude would not be scholarly, but be more like the “irresponsible full-preterist” I mentioned in the podcast. In academia, one is taught to be dogmatic about nothing! Most mainstream scholars do not like to be pinned-downed to a specific position. I am no different. Instead, I need the freedom to research, which is why I am at a University and not a Seminary.

So when will you have a “more dogmatic” answer concerning my conclusions on Covenant Eschatology? After I study Second-Temple Judaism for a few years and write a Thesis, then Dissertation. There is still a lot of critical hard-hitting work that needs to be done!

I always enjoy reading your work. It is of great honor to interact with you once again, although brief and scant it has been in the past, I too come from a non-theological background, and only a layman in terms of academia, and for the most part, just a web based personality that chooses to interact with some of the best scholars like Sam Frost that have departed from Full Preterism, in the field and subject of full preterism. I come from a reformed background, although in recent past, my conversion to RCC, was crucial to my departure out of full pretreism, but nonethelsss, a personal journey, in which, regardless of denomination, is the fruit thereof for that move out from it, as beneficial to all, no matter what angle or area in orthodoxy one chooses or is currently at.

You touched on some very critical points in regards to 2TJ and “apocalyptic genre” as Andrew Perriman’s use of the term, that are the catalyst in interpreting the style and prose in which the prophets both OT and NT, recognize, in order for their message to get accross to the listeners without acknowledging the secular and pagan inlfuences in which they fought so vehemountly against to pronounce God’s judgements through the ages in which they were told. The book of Revelation, for example, could have easily been written for the destruction of the temple in 586 BCE, during that time of exile, and this imagery used was also utilized by Jerimiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Isaiah, etc. compounding the sense of judgement pertaining to their own generations. As noted above, the same usage of terminology in Revelation could also be used for the plight of Assyria, Egypt (Moses) or even Noah, which Peter referred to as the old heavens and earth, typifying creation as seen and unseen, under the umbrella of the covenant standards in which existed in his time.

I also feel that the judgement in Christ’s age in the first century has unique Christo-centric attributes and most definitvely, focus, which distinguishes and differentiates itself from prior apocalypses, yet the general pattern of “apocalyptic genre” and judgement with a survival/reward of the faithful remnant remains the same, as well as the imagery likewise following like patterns in turn. As Jesus associated Himself with images that God used for Himself in the OT, being proof of His co-divinity, as in God manifested in the Flesh, the God-man Christ, and equality with the Father. The leaders of the Jewish theocracy would often accuse Him of blasphemy because Christ would apply the same genre and apocalypticism to Himself as the Father did prior to. Either He was a blasphemer, or He was truly God.

The resurrection, or the broad use of the term in the NT alone clearly shows, at least to me, under the veil of where I have moved into, historical preterism, that the concept is indeed multi-faceted, pertaining to a multi phased, and spatial collapse and configuration of re-creation of individuals starting at baptism and finding ultimate completion in the eternal state, awaiting the end of historical resurrection of the dead, glorified bodies, to be fully realized in the conflaguration fo the new heavnes and earth, another multi-faceted genre and forthright endowment of a temporal and eternal stasis in which all men and women of Christ, would experience in the now, and in the future consummation. Every person who is baptized alive on this earth from the first century till the end of time were/are/will be partaking in the process of ressurection, having its final completion in a realm beyond our undertsanding, in which we have only been given a glimpse of, in the texts as noted above, and thus more, found in hundreds of extra-biblical works stemming from the times in Israel’s history, to what I believe, as noted in many works of the early church fathers, post-apostolic and ecclesiatical generations, and onto many of the reformed theologians, to the thousands of modern scholars, strewn accross the various denominations in which we have today.

I am always blessed by reading your work, even though you consider yourself a layman, in which I highly disagree at this point with you in that regard :) and look forward to future interactions when they arise. I also look forward in witnessing Mr. Lewis’ move, in hopes that I do pray, a fervent deprature from teh error in which he has engulfed himself from, and grasp the multi-faceted levels in which the prophets attested to, in so many areas of apocalypticism, so that he too, finds peace within the orthodox circles he has immersed himself in.

God bless you.

On the points of disagreement between Bryan and scholarship, I am not asserting that critical scholars personally believe in items like the consummation of history or the resurrection. My point is that they broadly agree that the NT authors as well as Pharisaic Judaism and much of the apocalyptic strand within 2TJ believed these things. Some of the scholars are orthodox, some are ‘liberal’, and some are skeptics, but that does not concern us (for my discussion above). I am raising the issue of what scholarship has published/contended about the beliefs of the 1st century church and the NT authors because that is where FP’s have made claims that I do not believe stand up to scholarly scrutiny, and this is an issue Bryan in his study will be intimately aware. And I look forward to him addressing the arguments of the scholarship on (the authorial intent and community interpretation of) texts like Dan 12 and 1 Cor 15, where the academia is currently quite united.

Thanks again. Sorry for the deluge of clarifying posts.

This is a response to the podcast from Bryan E. Lewis, Am I a Full Preterist? A Statement from Bryan E. Lewis.

*** Please note: I have great respect (and I am quite jealous!) for Bryan as he pursues academic training at Vanderbilt Divinity School. This post is a critique, but it is intended to be conveyed with respect and love. Of those within the FP movement, there is no question that Lewis is the one with whom I have the most interests in common with scholarship, not unlike Sam Frost as a trained and theologically and exegetically conversant partner for dialogue before he returned to orthodoxy. I will hopefully continue to dialogue, and look forward to following Bryan’s evolution.

Why are we discussing Bryan E. Lewis?
Bryan is an interesting figure who has attracted the attention of full preterists and orthodox/consensus defenders alike. What separates him from the thousands of other students beginning graduate coursework is the fact that Bryan himself comes out of the heretical “hyper-preterist” or full preterism (FP) movement and he is attempting to maintain that perspective as he delves into academia. He received his bachelor’s in theology from Amridge University, a Churches of Church (CoC) institution. Bryan is now (Spring, 2012) beginning graduate work at Vanderbilt Divinity School.

Has he produced anything for peer review?
Lewis has noted he is interested in Historical Jesus studies as well as apocalyptic Second Temple Judaism (2TJ) (1:15, et al). He has exhibited a knowledge of the more popular Jesus scholars of the 20th and 21st century (see the paper produced for his undergraduate work posted on his website). He has not yet produced any papers, articles, or blog posts that show a familiarity with apocalyptic scholarship, past or present.

Has James Metzger produced anything?
No. I am a layman and elder who digests scholarly works for fun. I especially enjoy the research on 2TJ apocalyptic texts as well as the historical Jesus, which is why I attempt to bring the opinions of scholarship to those within both the FP and partial-preterist camps. I have no Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Aramaic, or other Semitic language training, and digest knowledge solely through English-language books and lectures available online. I am only qualified to speak at all where I accurately reflect the work of (especially modern) published scholars. My personal opinions are worth nothing on an academic scale, but hopefully I properly reflect those who are respected within scholarship. I disagree strongly with both the FP and (‘modern’) partial preterist perspectives in favor of scholarly consensus.

Why should I be interested in Bryan E. Lewis, again?
Lewis would be the first FP scholar, assuming he completes his academic work at a reputable school while maintaining the fundamentalist perspective of FP. Those who have been most influential within the FP movement are not scholars, but mostly (former) pastors from the CoC, notably Max King, Don Preston, Jack Scott, and William Bell, most of whom received pastoral training from CoC institutions. In the podcast, Bryan has in mind this group as the prime representatives of “responsible full preterists”, but they are not scholars, and do not pursue academic peer review or scholarly publication. They are primarily popularizers, more careful in their presentation than the less educated web personalities. (Sam Frost represents a former full preterist with post-graduate credentials from a Reformed perspective.)

Is serious scholarship compatible with the beliefs of “full preterism”?
Lewis has yet to address the fact that the fundamentalist presuppositions of full preterism/”covenant eschatology” are incompatible with critical scholarship. Full preterism assumes, sine qua non, that OT and NT expectations must be fulfilled historically in the events involved with the 1st century siege of Jerusalem by the Romans (otherwise they would not be FP). This belief is bolstered by the multiple statements in the NT where the authors expect the return of Christ/arrival of the Son of Man within the lifetime of the authors and their audience. The broad consensus of scholarship agrees with this analysis of NT expectation, but none would think that this should have a bearing on the critical investigation of the fulfillment of the writings. More on this below.

What should we note from the recent podcast, “Am I a full preterist?”
In the podcast, Bryan notes four beliefs that he holds in common with full preterism that are in direct contradiction with what the broad consensus of scholarship believes the NT ‘teaches’. Bryan says,

1. “…I continue to not believe that there will not be a consummation to history.” (32:30)
2. “I do not believe … in a future visible physical manifestation of Christ, a second coming.” (32:56)
3. “I do not believe in a future final judgment of all men and nations.” (33:25)
4. “[I] continue … to not believe in a future bodily resurrection and transformation of all believers.” (33:48)

Noteworthy here is that Bryan is at irreconcilable odds with scholarship on these points concerning the beliefs of the Christian authors and the Jewish 2TJ sources that most influenced their perspective. Consummation, judgment, and resurrection were persistent and powerful themes, as even a cursory survey of the scholarship bears out, and these expectations are enhanced tenfold within the movement of early Christianity and apostles such as Paul. The belief in resurrection within particularly Palestinian 2TJ is strongly attested and the evidence from within the NT corpus is without a scholarly remonstrant. So, Bryan has clearly decided to maintain a “hyperpreterist” ideology against the consensus of scholarship. And this is what makes the subsequent statement by Lewis quite curious. Bryan says (34:04),

“I have no theological bias in the mix. … I am from a Neo-Orthodox perspective, or a Historical Jesus perspective, a historical-critical idea or method…”

Bryan has admitted that he believes, against academia, in the four statements above. So on what basis can he say, “I have no theological bias”? The only reason he takes the stance he does is because of the theological bias he brings with him into his academic pursuit. He is not deriving any FP theology from scholarship. No one does. One does not scientifically pursue the study of ANE texts, from without FP, and fideistically determine what the fulfillment of them must have been. On the contrary, full preterists generally come to their understanding the same way Bryan did, not from an academic or critically informed perspective, but because “full preterism really seemed to provide an answer” (8:39) to the theological dilemma perceived in the NT text and highlighted by the likes of Schweitzer in the early 20th century.

So Bryan’s real dilemma is reconciling his fundamentalist/concordist beliefs in FP (similar notions are of course evident in orthodox theology) with the methods of critical scholarship.

At some point, as Bryan pursues academic training, he will have to actually confront the consensus arguments of Jesus and apocalyptic scholars that have come to starkly different conclusions. However, I am optimistic given Bryan’s propensity toward the academy, reflected in the current post-graduate pursuit, and believe that in the end his desire to be faithful to the method of the scholars will force him away from his theologically aberrant perspectives, which would bring him back to within striking distance orthodoxy. And from there he can choose, as other scholars have, faith (after Bauckham, Hurtado) or agnosticism/atheism (so Ehrman).

So, keep up the good work, Bryan, and I look forward to reading more on your full engagement with modern critical scholarship.

respectfully,
James Metzger

So, I would consider myself an “opponent” of Calvinism, but I counter it with Classical Arminianism, not semi-pelagianism or the folk religion of the Church of Christ.

Two books:
Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olsen (the Forward written by Michael S. Horton)
For Calvinism by Michael S. Horton (the Forward written by Roger E. Olsen)

Thank you for your comment and as Sam states your honesty is much appreciated.

“Your points are well taken. I am certainly familiar with both your line of reasoning and the epistemological presuppositions from which it flows. Although you are certainly men of systematic reason, you are also men of faith and it is that faith that seems to allow you to view the historical data regarding the doctrinal disagreement and sometimes violent fragmentation of Christianity as the progressive fulfillment of Ephesians 4 via the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit. I can certainly appreciate that perspective since it is one I myself held for many years, but are no longer able to internally rationalize.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “men of faith”. In some circles that might mean, as Soren Kierkegaard framed it a “leap of faith”, which would not be my view at all. My faith is founded in reason. Also, I would not characterize my perspective as the result of “internal rationalization”. I don’t see anything in Eph. 4 which suggests fallen mankind including believers who are sinners saved by grace and are considered new creations to be immune from the humanism inherent within the fallen nature. The fact that down through the ages certain generations have reacted to disagreement not in accord with what we today perceive as acceptable standards seems to me to be a bit presumptuous on our part and anachronistic.

God Bless,

Now, your admission concerning orthodoxy is an honest one – and that is appreciated. Most Full Preterists still want to pretend that they are in the “Historic Christian faith”. That their FP is compatible with orthodoxy, or even Calvinism (!). It isn’t. It’s roots are not even remotely Calvinist.

However, havnig stated what you have here, what do you offer by way of explanation of what you have described? How can the church, perfected in knowledge, redeemed entirely, matured and glorified, drop the ball so fast? Here is one answer from a Facebook Full Preterist: “Men are debase when left to their own wiles. The lust for power and esteem and control makes them capable of anything. Men have even gotten so bad and evil in their nature as to become Calvinists. That takes a complete departure from even the most minute instinctive inhibition one might have reaming to insult God with their very inner soul, not just their flawed intellect filled with man’s traditions.”

Do you see how this is a direct contradiction to the very Full Preterism he espouses? Does this not sound like the very “sin” that Jesus came to “deliver” his church from in AD 70, RELAPSED? How can this be? And, if it is an apt descripton, then we have just more of the same ole, same ole that Israel had: SIN DOMINATION; ERROR DOMINATION; SLAVES TO SIN. How can this be? I mean, the very heart of the gospel, the Presence and Full Dwelling of God on earth….and the Wife of the Lamb RELAPSES?

This explanation does not work.

Your points are well taken. I am certainly familiar with both your line of reasoning and the epistemological presuppositions from which it flows. Although you are certainly men of systematic reason, you are also men of faith and it is that faith that seems to allow you to view the historical data regarding the doctrinal disagreement and sometimes violent fragmentation of Christianity as the progressive fulfillment of Ephesians 4 via the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit. I can certainly appreciate that perspective since it is one I myself held for many years, but are no longer able to internally rationalize.

Jason, I agree with you completely that Hyperpreterists who continue to try and redefine orthodox Christianity in order to make it compatible with this heresy are creating yet another needless division within Christianity. It’s like trying to put new wine into old wineskins and is embarrassing to Hyperpreterists like myself. I, on the other hand, fully realize and acknowledge that I am a heretic according to orthodoxy and that my beliefs are in no way compatible with it. Obviously I can not find you a Reformation confession that doesn’t teach a future return and resurrection of bodies since to my knowledge such a confession does not exist. This is yet another example of why Hyperpreterism is hopelessly outside the pale of orthodoxy.

However, I am unable to reconcile the issue of your claim regarding “unity in essentials” and the established parameters of Notae Ecclesiae specifically among Reformed ecclesiastical bodies and their confessions. In particular the fact that confessions such as WCF, Belgic, and Hiedelberg Catechism for instance differ with others such as the 1689 LBC on the very issue of membership in the New Covenant and participation in the sacraments with regards to the infant children of believers. I honestly do not understand how disagreement regarding the requirements for membership in the community of the New Covenant “in Christ blood” and participation in the sacraments is not regarded as disunity on an essential issue and mark of Notae Ecclesiae. I don’t find the orthopraxy argument convincing since the contradictory practices of these different Reformed ecclesiastical bodies is ultimately determined by the disunity in what they profess regarding essential soteriological elements of the New Covenant which directly deal with the efficacy of Christ’s atoning work on behalf of “covenant children”. By what biblical standard are these NOT essential issues every bit as much as the disunity between Protestants and Rome regarding whether Christ’s righteousness is imputed or infused as the very ground of justification? Did not Luther refer to that issue as no less the very article on which the church stands of falls?

All great points. What gets me is that full preterism seems to think that they have the realized prophetic revelation that has been clouded for centuries…now I thought prophecy and revealtion ceased, in 70 CE?

:P

Flood Chiasm – Dr. Warren Gage. http://web.archive.org/web/20041121164345/http://www.knoxseminary.org/prospective/Faculty/FacultyForum/JohnRevelationProject/part7.html

And here is some more information on the John-Revelation Project

http://ad70.net/the-john-revelation-project

It’s funny, because on one hand, the FP’s want a “perfect” Church in AD 70 onwards, yet, also acknowledge that we are still “developing” in our understanding! I think the divisions among the FP’s are starting to sink in for some of them. Reality.

You would think a guy who wrote, “The thousands of different denominations and their variety of church polity illustrates the ecclesiological “mess” that is historic Christianity.”, wouldn’t be so oblivious to the key issue. The recognition the “ecclesiological “mess” could arrive at, “agreement on the nature of the “big three” (parousia, resurrection, and judgement)….”, should send the poster a signal. Dr. J.N.D Kelly explains, “From the beginning there has been a twofold emphasis in the Christian doctrine of the last things. While stressing the reality and completeness of present salvation, it has pointed believers to certain great eschatological events located in the future.” (Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth Edition, J.N.D. Kelly, Continuum, pg. 459)

I’m sure Mr. Mara intended his remarks to make the point, the Church comprised of fallen men and women saved by Grace are in the process of being redeemed and are not perfect. However, his remarks should certainly tell him something. How is it, the Church that has created such a “mess” save for those great eschatological events of the future which go directly to the purpose of God redemptive plan? Mr. Mara contends, “hyperpreterists would “come home” to orthodoxy if its own household wasn’t so dysfucntional as well.” It certainly seems to me Mr. Mara’s compliant is best illustrated by the old saying, he “can’t see the forest for the trees”.

God Bless,

So, let me get this straight. If i hang around a group that simply says that Jesus will never physically return to earth, then all this “mess” is cleaned up? Um…nope. All you did was create YET ANOTHER DIVISION and have forsaken even the supposed little we Christians all agree on.

Hyperpreterists have solved NOTHING in this regards.

John, find me a “reformation” confession that doesn’t teach a future return and resurrection of bodies.

Now, this “mess” you talk about, yes, I agree. Church history is not pretty. It is PROGRESSIVE. It illustrates Ephesians 4 to a tee (which the hyper prets think is fulfilled!). It’s not fulfilled. We are tossed to and fro. but we won’t sink. we won’t drown. We have a Life Saver. We are promised to arrive at the destination, and THEN we shall be made perfect. One Church. One People. Glorified. Victory.

However:

This video from John Piper’s conference http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/an-evening-of-eschatology that Jason posted a few years ago graphically illustrates the eschatological “mess” that is historic Christianity.

The reformation and counter reformation with no ecumenical resolution ‘til this day illustrates the soteriological “mess” that is historic Christianity.

The thousands of different denominations and their variety of church polity illustrates the ecclesiological “mess” that is historic Christianity.

The paedobaptist/credobaptist and paedocommunion/credocommunion controversies and the continuing disagreement regarding the form and efficacy of these ordinances illustrates the sacramental “mess” that is historic Christianity.

The charismatic/cessationist controversy illustrates the pneumatological “mess” that is historic Christianity.

The crusades, the inquisition, and the Magisterial Reformers treatment of the Anabaptists, among other things, illustrate the bloody “mess” that has been historic Christianity.

But I guess as long as historic Christianity has agreement on the nature of the “big three” (parousia, resurrection, and judgement) we should turn a blind eye to all these other “non-essential” issues.

It seems to me that the truly sad part about it though is that it is the “scholars” of historic Christianity that have created that mess, while it is merely the unscholarly theological neophytes (as Jason likes to refer to them) who are to blame for the hyperpreterism mess. In all sincerity, perhaps Bryan Lewis and other hyperpreterists would “come home” to orthodoxy if its own household wasn’t so dysfucntional as well.

Catching up on some weekend reading I see where Mr. Green failed to comprehend the argument offered in response to Dr. Birks fallacious charge. I’m not surprised after all, not only does Mr. Green fail to comprehend my argument he has as well failed to comprehend the Apostle Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 15. Amazingly Mr. Green writes,

“The concept of a “bodiless” resurrection never entered into the discussion in Corinth. Body-resurrection was a given.

The point of disagreement was whether or not the dead were going to share in the resurrection with those who were in Christ (1 Cor. 15:18).”

Really, then I guess the Apostle Paul wrote, “But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” for giggles, eh? Mr. Green’s claim is absurd. Why if the dispute was not over the body of the believer being raised would Paul explain some will ask, “With what kind of body do they come?” Answer, clearly the dispute was over whether or not a dead body could in fact come back to life. Mr. Green’s ability to comprehend the argument remains consistent.

Mr. Green’s inability to comprehend the basics continues..

“Response:
For Paul to have deceptively “changed definitions in mid-stream” –from using the word “body” to describe the physicality of Christ’s resurrection, to using the word “body” to describe the church’s “New Man” resurrection– Paul would have first had to have used the word “body”to describe the physicality of Christ’s resurrection.

But Paul never used the word “body” in that way in 1 Corinthians 15. Therefore there was no change of definitions in “mid-stream.””

True, Paul doesn’t refer to the specifically to “body” of Christ Jesus in 1 Cor. 15. However, for Mr. Green’s argument to have any plausibility the idea Paul conveyed here, “he was buried, that he was raised on the third day”, would, of course, need to exclude His body. The simple fact is, inherent within Paul’s testimony found in 1 Cor. 15:4-8 is the physical, material, human “body” of Christ Jesus which died and came back to life. Mr. Green’s argument is patently absurd.

Mr. Green’s comprehension challenge continues.

“Ironically, this argument “changes definitions in mid-stream”: :)

According to the argument, the church is the “covenantal” body, but the individual members of the “covenantal” body are –lo and behold– “physical” bodies.”

It is rather amusing Mr. Green seems to find it odd that individual members of the church, who just happen to be human beings have human bodies. Nevertheless, Paul said so, “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (1 Cor. 6:15) Gee how man “bodies” does Christ Jesus have according to Mr. Green?

Mr. Green would do well to heed to writings of Paul. Mr. Green’s comprehension issues remain consistent. Indeed, Mr. Green’s confusion results in a real dilemma. Mr. Green writes,

“In reality, the church is the “covenantal” body (the new Man), and its members are also “covenantal” bodies (Rom. 8:11). Each individual believer has “put on” / been “clothed” with “the new Man,” which is “the immortal Body” “from out of heaven.” Whether a saint is in the flesh today or in heaven today, he/she is “clothed” with the body/building/habitation of Christ (1 Cor. 15:53-54; 2 Cor. 5:1-4).”

Based on what Mr. Green wrote immediately above Paul is referring to the church in Rom. 8:11. Yet in Rom. 8:10, Paul tells us, “although the body is dead because of sin”. Mr. Green’s position requires Paul to have contradicted himself explaining the church is dead due to sin, yet he told the Ephesians, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word” Eph 5:25,26 I’m thinking Mr. Green would have confused even the Apostle Paul.

But hey, Mr. Green has previously argued himself in to a position which resulted in Paul having lied to the Corinthians and Timothy, so the fact he has him once again contradicting himself to the Ephesians should not surprise any of us. According to Mr. Green Paul explains out of one side of his mouth the church is dead because of sin only to turn around and profess the church has been cleansed by the blood of Christ Jesus. Ironic isn’t it, Mr. Green would have us all think the guy who wrote the majority of the New Testament was a bundle of confusion.

Mr. Green’s amazing display of “comprehension” concludes,

“How many believers do you need before you have “the body of Christ”?

Answer: One.

We can’t say the corporate church is the covenantal body and then “TURN AROUND” and say the individual is not also a covenantal body.”

Folks, I think the question needs to be put back to Mr. Green, “how many bodies of Christ do you think there are if each individual believer is a “covenantal” body”? When Paul explained in 1 Cor. 6, “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?”, how many churches as in bodies of Christ did he have in mind? Clearly, Mr. Green’s sophist spin leads to a dilemma.

Mr. Green would have us all believe “His” body is really “our” body, although as Paul explained He died for His body and nowhere is it taught in Scripture the church is anyone else’s body other than Christ’s. What Mr. Green doesn’t comprehend is that the “covenantal body” is “His” body not the believers as in “our” body. You can’t claim the church is “His” body and then turn around and say it is “our” body. First that is nowhere taught in Scripture and 2nd, He died for His church.

God Bless,

To say that it was only the dead saints who were raised in AD70 is to declare that those who were still physically alive were ‘left behind’ – a complete reversal of dispensationalism.

I agree with a few things here from Bryan, but for the most part, i wasn’t impressed.

1. I agree hyperpreterism is a mess.
2. I agree hyperpreterism isn’t “scholarly”.

but

3. the distinction between “responsible” and “irresponsible” hyperpreterists doesn’t fly with me, nor do i think it would fly with Paul. Hyperpreterism is heresy. Period. Whether it is Max King’s version or Pretcompost/SGP’s version. Thus, ALL hyperpreterists are “irresponsible”, biblically speaking.

I don’t recall Paul ever distinguishing between honorable heretics and dishonorable heretics.

4. The “scholarly” world is just as screwed up as the “unscholarly” world. If you’re going to make a distinction, make one between how the Bible would classify a scholar vs how the world would classify one.

For example, Bart Ehrman isn’t a “scholar”, biblically speaking. His nonsense is nothing more than sophisticated unbelief. Thus, the distinction.

5. Bryan says that the only thing a scholar is to be dogmatic about is nothing. In a similar vein, he makes it sound as though he comes to the text with no “bias”. Both of these statements are impossible.

6. I really fail to see how Don Preston is a “scholar” in either standard. He certainly isn’t one biblically. But even wordly? How? Compare, for example, what John Piper wrote on Romans 9 with Preston’s material. There is no comparison. You just don’t find the depth of analysis that Piper did in what Preston writes, and Piper typically isn’t even referred to as a “scholar”.

7. Bryan is a hyperpreterist. He doesn’t want to call himself that, but that’s what he is.

What * i heard * from these podcasts was basically someone who is a hyperpreterist and is embarrassed of it, for numerous reasons; so he has to make these distinctions and tout the “scholarly” bit.

Come home, Bryan.

But Paul never used the word “body” in that way in 1 Corinthians 15. Therefore there was no change of definitions in “mid-stream.” :)”

I repeat: 1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of ___first importance___ what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was ___buried___, that he was ___raised___ on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

This is Paul’s witness that Jesus’ was BODILY raised from the dead. (How was Jesus raised? Bodily.)

1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

The problem at Corinth was that some were saying (just like the hyper-preterists) that there wasn’t going to be a bodily resurrection (the type of resurrection Paul just argued for) like Jesus Chist was bodily raised.

Jesus was raised BODILY and Paul agues that very point. So the argument that Paul __never__ uses the word __body__ is nothing more than what is heard from those naysayers who say the word __trinity__ is not in the Bible. The CONCEPT is there just assuredly as the concept of the Trinity is there. Since Paul begins his discourse with the concept of the bodily resurrection, then compares Jesus’ resurrection to the believers resurrection, then to argue otherwise is to change concepts in mid-stream.

That is NOT to say the term “body” or “bodily” is not used in other ways in other parts of the Bible. But in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is most assuredly speaking of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and using that to assure the Corinthians that our body will be raised just like His was.

The Flood?

“You’re fired!”

Paul’s witness that Jesus’ was BODILY raised from the dead.

1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

The problem at Corinth was that some were saying (just like the hyper-preterists) that there wasn’t going to be a bodily resurrection like Jesus Chist was bodily raised.

But Paul sets them straight:

1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

To those naysayers Paul makes the point that if there is no such thing as a (bodily – just like Jesus) resurrection of the dead, then even Jesus wasn’t raised (bodily) from the dead and our faith is in vain. The context demands, based on verses 3 – 8, that Paul is speaking of bodily resurrection because of his explicit mention of the witnesses who saw Jesus (bodily) after His resurrection. Paul is making a point that our resurrection will be just like Jesus Christ’s resurrection, i.e. BODILY.

1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.

Again, Paul points out that our future bodily resurrection (based on Jesus’ resurrection) must be true based on Jesus Christ’s resurrection, of which the witnesses testified of.

Paul so closely relates our resurrection to the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ it is virtually impossible to reinterpret this chapter any other way. Plainly and simply it states that if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Jesus Christ wasn’t raised.

Paul is not being deceptive here at all, which the hyper-preterist would have us believe when they state that our resurrection is not bodily in the same way Jesus Christ’s was bodily. They must chang definitions in mid-stream from the very bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ to a vague “corporate body” resurrection of the saints and then claim these are compatable.

Sharon

The issue was “bodily resurrection of the dead” (Paul’s view) versus “NO resurrection of the dead” (the view of those at Corinth).

The concept of a “bodiless” resurrection never entered into the discussion in Corinth. Body-resurrection was a given.

The point of disagreement was whether or not the dead were going to share in the resurrection with those who were in Christ (1 Cor. 15:18).”

Scholars question whether or not there was a complete denial of “any and all” resurrection of formerly dead people, or whether they affirmed Jesus’ resurrection, but denied anyone else. Notice that Dave’s slight of hand is obvious: “Body-resurrection was a given.” Then, “The point of disagreement was whether or not the dead were going to share in the resurrection with those who were in Christ.” See that? “Going to SHARE….in Christ….” I.E. “body” is defined solely in terms of Christ’s body (corporate). “The dead” are those, in Green’s view, from Adam to the time folks believed in Christ (he slightly modifies King’s position, who defined “the dead” solely as OT Israel). Definitions are everything.

So, what was going on here is that “some” were affirming THEIR participating “in christ” along with those who believed in Christ. What these “some” were denying was NOT the resurrection of Jesus, but the participation of those previous to the time of Christ – the dead. Moses, Daniel, Noah, Naaman, etc. How can they participate in the “body” of Christ when that very “body” was formed during the time of Christ and not before? For Green, this is the problem…..Paul says, ‘no, christ will make them (the dead) alive as well, for they believed, too, if from afar off”

In other words, resurrection of the dead (plural) has NOTHING do to with resurrection of dead bodies (only one dead body is raised, Jesus’). Rather resurrection of the dead is determined by who, and who does not, participate in the Body of Christ – the Church. Got it?

I spent some time searching for good books on the subject and found a few that I personally liked.

1.) “The Shape of Biblical Language, Chiasmus in the Scripture and Beyond” by John Breck. You can find his book here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0881411396/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&condition=all (great book! Very, very thorough)

2.) “Chaismus in the New Testament, A Study in the Form and Function of Chiastic Structures”. http://www.amazon.com/Chiasmus-New-Testament-Function-Structures/dp/0943575923/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336795936&sr=1-1

3.) “Chiasmus in Antiquity” http://www.amazon.com/Chiasmus-Antiquity-Structures-Analyses-Exegesis/dp/0934893330/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336796007&sr=1-1

The first one is my favorite, but the other ones (combined with the others) seem to cover almost all of the bases. If someone is intersted in this line of study, I would say its very, very rewarding.

Anyway, Jason – great job! I love this stuff and I’m really glad you shared this blog. :o)

Dr. Kelly Birks has responded to this blog writing,

“ I read your ridiculous and inaccurate appraisal of my FB comments in your article on ROC. Once again, (and i knew that you would probably do this), you have completely misrepresented what it was i wrote on FB concerning Phil 3:21 and Harris’ position on the “subject” of the believers resurrection body. I never wrote that my position on Phil. 3:21 was the “same” as Harris’. You better go back to that FB thread and re-read. I wrote that my “position” was the same as the of Harris in regards to the “comments” that he made in his book “From Grave to Glory.” You turned around and produced a completely misleading article on me asserting that I said that my position on Phil 3:21 was the same as Harris’ in the book. You and I have nothing more to say to each other. Last time i checked, bearing false witness against another (which you have done to me on a number of occasions), is a sin according to the 9th commandment. This is the last time we will communicate until you repent.”

Dr. Birks claims I’ve violated the ninth commandment by producing a misleading article. Dr. Birks suggests I go back to the FB thread and reread what was written, so I thought I would take him up on his offer and demonstrate how he has falsely accused me. The conversation Dr. Birks refers to is the same conversation from which I extracted his quotes used in the blog above and can be found here, http://www.facebook.com/quantumgreg/posts/10150978024114278?comment_id=27163944&offset=0&total_comments=86

I stumbled across the conversation between Greg and Dr. Birks so after Greg had asked, “how was Paul’s lowly body transformed and made like Christ’s glorious body in AD70?”, which clearly is a reference to Phil 3:21, I thought I would follow up. This was when I asked Dr. Birks, among other things , the question concerning Phil 3:21 As the record reflects I asked, “BTW, doesn’t Paul claim “this” body, as in the believers body, will be changed to be “like” His body.”

Dr. Birk’s replied, “Phil. 3:21 says, Hos metaschematizo to soma tes tapeinoseos emon…. “Who will effect a transformance (by transferal) of our body of humility….”

I had never heard anyone suggest the term metaschematizo in Phil 3:21 conveyed what Dr. Birks termed as “transferal”, so I followed up asking Dr. Birks, “”Transferal”, do you have any support for your assertion the concept contemplated in Phil 3:21 is a migration from one body to another?”,

To which Dr. Birk’s replied, “To “migrate” in the context of which we are speaking, is the wrong word to use. To migrate is to change from one “place” to another, as in changing locations, or as it is used of “migrant” farm-workers. I’ve already offered lexical support for the Biblical Pauline concept of transference in the above lexical sources for metaschematizo.”

Dr. Birks answer ultimately lead to my question, “By support I wasn’t talking about your understanding of what a lexicon conveys. By support I meant anyone who is diligent in the original languages that agrees with your assessment of the “transferal” of one body to another. Are you aware of any Greek scholars who support your assessment?”

Dr. Birks’ immediate response, as the record reflects, was, “Murray J. Harris, “From Grave to Glory.” Go read it. His position is my position.”

To recap, Dr. Birks claimed the term metaschematizo translated “transform” in Phil 3:21 actual meant “transferal” and when questioned for a Greek scholar who concurred with his translation of the term Dr. Birks immediately replied with “Murray Harris”.

However, that isn’t where the discussion ended. I then followed up with, “Dr. Birks, I need to clarify something. It seems to me you are maintaining the term, “metaschematizo” in Phil 3:21 means “transferal”. You maintain Dr. Murray Harris holds this same view based on this quote, “When the physical body is transformed into or replaced by the spiritual body”. Am I correctly understanding what you are conveying?” Folks, this is key, Dr. Birks never responded with clarification as to his position. Furthermore, I then went the extra step and asked, “I’ve reviewed pages 201 and 238 in “From Grave to Glory” and didn’t see any reference to Phil 3:21 or where the term “metaschematizo” is discussed. Have I misunderstood you? I thought you were claiming Dr. Harris supported your understanding of the term “metaschematizo” as rendered “transferal”. Again, Dr. Birks never responded to my questions requesting clarification of his position.

However, Greg later pointed out, “Paul, I think Dr. Birks is only saying that Harris’ view of the resurrection body is his view….”, to which I replied, “Greg, thanks. This is one of the limitations I find with this mode of communication. In context, I took Dr. Birks to be arguing the term “transformation” in Phil 3:21 meant “transferal” and that Dr. Harris supported this position. If Dr. Birks is leveraging Dr. Harris position on the nature of the resurrection body and then reading that into Phil 3:21, that is a mistake. Phil 3:21 is discussing a different concept than the nature of the resurrection body.”

This exchange wherein Dr. Birks left the impression, especially in light of the context of the discussion as the record demonstrates reveals Dr. Birks had more than ample opportunity to clarify his position. Folks, this is a key point. Dr. Birks is misusing the law of God falsely accusing me of violating the ninth commandment. When Dr. Birks refused to clarify the issue by simply offering a response to the effect of something like, “no that is not what I mean”, then he negated any violation of the ninth commandment on my part. Dr. Birks “non answer” to my clarifying question affirmed my position thereby absolving me of a ninth commandment violation. A simple “no” from Dr. Birks would have stopped me from writing the blog above. Thus I haven’t born false witness against Dr. Birks, I’ve merely reported on the impression he created and then refused to clarify when asked directly about his position. The truth of the matter Dr. Birks has falsely accused me and owes me an apology.

However, that said, let’s go back to what Dr. Birks alleged which is, “Phil. 3:21 says, Hos metaschematizo to soma tes tapeinoseos emon…. “Who will effect a transformance (by transferal) of our body of humility….”

Folks, I’ve scoured the commentaries and can find no support for Dr. Birks position as to the correct translation of “metaschematizo” in the text. No one, as far as I know, save Dr. Birks claims “metaschematizo” in Phil 3:21 means “tranferal” or “transformance”. The question everyone needs to ask themselves is, why is it all the commentators contradict Dr. Birks? Why should anyone buy what Dr. Birks is selling? I think the answer to this question is patently obvious.

God Bless,

I appreciate Mr. Lewis honesty. Is Mr. Lewis definition of “historical-critical” defined by a view which claims “reality is uniform and universal and that one’s present experience supplies an objective criterion for determining what could or could not have happened in the past.” ? Would it be fair to say Mr. Lewis is coming from an “anti-supernatural stance”? And that he “seeks to explain the biblical books solely in terms of human processes unaided by divine revelation”?

God Bless,

But, wow, Bryan’s choice of going to the liberal side instead of orthodox is extremely odd. It is depressing to me to think that God was not sovereignly guiding His bride through 2000 years of history! I can hardly comprehend that as a possibility. I’m thinking Bryan doesn’t yet fully understand the repercussions of taking that position yet. I pray his eyes are opened to at least see something as dogmatic and authoritative instead of his own ideas. Just because some brothers & sisters in the past misused true doctrine to “lord it over” others does not determine its truthfulness.

You are in good hands here. Sam and Jason have done a great job providing sound reasoned argument against the hyperpreterist position. Another source you may want to consider is Dee Dee Warren’s site, http://www.preteristblog.com/

God Bless,

“And you have my bow” – http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper

blessings!

That’s my job!! :)

In the Garden, we became like God, knowing good and evil. In other words, we became gods, deciding what was good and evil by our own autonomous mind without any need or reference to God’s word. We defined reality, and then state that God must “fit” this reality. Jesus Christ gives us an escape from this. He is a man. He is in heaven. He warps our understanding of time, space, dimension and reality. A human body in heaven? Talk about bending physics! Keep your eyes on Jesus, Greg……and he will astound you every day.

Over on DID, where Jeff roams, I had a conversation about Genesis 1 “trees.” I said that besides the clear meaning of Genesis 1 being about the physical creation, I needed it to be about the physical creation so that when my grandkids ask me, “Who made the trees?” I can answer, “God did” and point to Genesis 1. What amazed (and shocked) me was the answers I got to this one simple statement.

First, Tami says that all I have to do is read Colossians 1 which says He made “all things visible and invisible” and I can know God made trees. She also makes a reference to the Nicene Creed. What the…?! And then she says all over the OT we can see God’s sovereignty over nature. So I can’t have Genesis 1:11-12 which clearly says God made the trees, but I have to wait 4000 years for Paul to write “visible and invisible” before anybody can know God made trees?! And then throw Nicene Creed at me? I threw it back about the future coming of Christ.

Second, John Scargy comes in and says that he reads fairy tales to his grandkids and they are able to discern what is true. By this, he means, kids can figure out God made trees without Genesis 1! He even calls me “dangerous” because I put my kids’ faith on the line by telling them the Bible teaches things it is not intended to (i.e. making Genesis 1 refer to physical trees when it clearly refers to covenantal ones). Now what makes this end funny is, like Tami, he throws ancient writings at me… Augustine and Calvin! Of course, I threw them back regarding the future coming of Christ and that they both taught Genesis 1 as the physical creation. I told him there was no scholar in 6000 years that thought otherwise.

Third, Norm comes in and emphasizes the symbology of “trees” in Genesis 1:11-12 because all of Genesis 1 is obviously Hebrew poetry. I remind him there are no scholars in 6000 years that thought that chapter was only symbolic.

Now get this. John Scargy then throws a James Jordan quote from Through New Eyes at me: “Similarly, if we approach the Bible with questions about botany, we find that the Bible discusses plants and trees in terms of how they symbolize various kinds of men, or in terms of their usefulness for food and medicine.” I thought, Do I really have to answer this? I pointed out to John that James Jordan did not believe what he believes either and therefore it was useless to quote him to me. In fact, James Jordan wrote the following book:

Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One LOL!

Sheesh.

So, I’ve never been able to understand how anyone can stay with Covenant Creation. I’ve read their book (Jeff & Tim’s) which Tim graciously sent me for free. Their arguments are not convincing. It is painfully evident that the only reason they see Genesis 1 as only (don’t say “merely”, it makes them mad) covenantal is because they need for it to be “consistent” with when Jesus supposedly destroyed the heavens and earth in AD70. Since “heavens and earth” were destroyed then, and it obviously wasn’t physical, then “heavens and earth” in the whole rest of the Bible must refer to something other than physical. Huh?! Their version of full preterism must have it that way. It colors everything they write and read. I got exhausted with it. In my humble opinion, and for lack of a better description… “Covenantal Creationism” is nuts. Feel free to quote me on that.

The exchange I had over at DID was pleasant enough (they were not rude). I believe most (if not all) of them are sincere. But, you know the old saying. We can be sincere, and sincerely wrong. But the good thing is, we can change. I did. The truth will make us free, but first it will make us mad.

You also can contact me @ kengalloway@comcast.net
I was once a full preterist as well. As Sam said, disregard any hate mail you get from others about the Jason and him. It is complete, arbitrary nonsense. I come from the Cahtolic position, (Vatican II), but we are all brothers here, fighting the same battle, to correct the errors of FP and dispensationlism, which as Sam said, are polarized twins. Take care.

Identity, then, is key here. This helps us to understand indivisibility between “soul” and “body.” The Bible utilizes language such as “he gave up his spirit” (John 19.30). His spirit. His body (veres 40). We can apply the same to us. Sam’s spirit. Sam’s body. Sam. There is only one Sam, Mike, Jason, Paul. There is only one body that uniquely belongs to these individuals. At conception (union between substance and spirit, forming an individual person) you are who you are in God’s mind. This is key. God, who HOLDS ALL THINGS together, knows you thoroughly; each cell, each DNA strand, each hair on your head, and certainly your soul. Upon death, you give up your spirit. Your body (it’s still yours) undergoes corruption and decay. You may even die at sea and your cells scattered all about. From an empirical standpoint, it may appear to be impossible to our understanding and what-we-think-we-know categories of reasoning that this “body” will ever be “raised” whole again. However, let us not think that God, who made us, has not, in his mind, the identity intact. That within his mind, he cannot, within a flash, recall your whole body. Can he not?

And, Rod, you are doing a FINO job!

I see the blatherskite Mr. Green explained,

“Nothing Mr. Green wrote implies that “God decreed a curse from which He never offers redemption.”

Good, then given Mr. Green explained, “We must all agree that physical death was at least involved in the curse”, when referring to the curse levied by God against Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:17 he seems to have conceded God must offer redemption from the physical death which was at least “involved” in the curse levied. However, as his antics would dictate Mr. Green seems to have gone on and contradicted himself claiming…

“Nothing Mr. Green wrote implies that “physical death was an aspect of the curse levied against Adam and Eve, but that Adam and Eve were not subject to this aspect of the curse.”

Gee, I wonder how Mr. Green defines the term “involved”. Let’s see, the term “involved” means, “being affected or implicated”. So, based on the term Mr. Green used physical death was an “affect” or “implication” of the curse. What a confusing position Mr. Green is developing. Conceding physical death was an affect of the curse, yet denying his position is tantamount to physical death being as “aspect” of the curse. Truly, Mr. Green is a confused individual. Furthermore Mr. Green claims

“Nothing Mr. Green wrote implies that “Adam and Eve never physically died.”

So, Mr. Green concedes the physical death which was “involved” as in “affect/implication” of the curse levied against Adam and Eve resulted in their death. Yet Mr. Green goes on to contradict himself one more time claiming

“Nothing Mr. Green wrote implies that Adam and Eve were beneficiaries of a curse an aspect of which they never received.”

Mr. Green see,s to be claiming Adam and Eve were not beneficiaries of a condition he concedes was “involved” as in “affect/implication” of the curse levied against Adam and Eve. Thus Mr. Green’s position requires Adam and Eve to still be alive else their physical death was not “involved” as in an “affect/implication” of the curse.

Mr. Green’s seems to be rather confused over the issue.

God Bless,

But perhaps all of those incidents are allegorical too and they all mean “covenantal death” or “Hadean death”.

I’ve not regretted one second being away from such weird doctrine.

Help me out. Mr. Green writes,

“We must all agree that physical death was at least involved in the curse.”

Is Mr. Green claiming God decreed a curse from which He never offers redemption?

Oh, yeah, if you wouldn’t mind helping me with this fine piece of logic by Mr. Green who wrote,
“Though physical death was thus involved in the curse, Adam and Eve’s Death was not physical or biological death.”

It appears Mr. Green is arguing physical death was an aspect of the curse levied against Adam and Eve, but that Adam and Eve were not subject to this aspect of the curse. Is Mr. Green claiming Adam and Eve never physically died? How could it be that Adam and Eve were beneficiaries of a curse an aspect of which they never received?

This appears to me to be some seriously warped thinking, but hey, that’s just me.

God Bless,

“I’d think the then imposition of sheol/hades came to be a problem BECAUSE OF the sin, thus the continuance of separation beyond the physical realm. Prior to this, death [whenever that was to occur] without said separation in sheol/hades would simply have meant continuance with God, albeit in another realm of existence.”

I wonder what Scripture the poster has to support the concept death would have occurred to Adam had he not violated God’s command? I think this is what is called begging the question. Those two questions the poster begs are 1, Adam would have inevitable died even though he kept God’s commandment and 2, there is some other destiny for man other than the destiny God created and in which He placed him.

God Bless,

Sam: Why even bring up the word “death” at all? What kind of veiled threat is that?

Well Sam… a “veiled threat” is exactly what your theory affords, because death to that point, having no bearing or existence in creation would have meant NOTHING to Adam because such an event had never [according to your interpretation] occurred, and as such was totally foreign – so yeah, some threat indeed.

Sam: I mean, God, if You are going to speak, speak plainly!

Again Sam your depreciatory exacerbation is not a new thing… Jn 16:29.

Sam: However, since all criminals are going to naturally die anyway, what “threat” was this? Early death? Does the fact that we naturally die rob capital punishment of its power?

I wonder how you might react threatened with early death? Everyone cherishes their life and rarely want it to end prematurely. So yes, potential “early death” would indeed be understood if physical death was a natural part of the creative order.

Thus when Adam did not physically die “on the day” a new revelation of what death meant must have come to the fore, and subsequently a broader realisation in terms of alienation etc, understood i.e., “the death”.

Sam: How, then, would Adam ever be able to be in the “space” or ‘place” of God, where God resides in the highest heaven? Was he created with THIS kind of “life”? No.

HOW do you know he wasn’t; what scriptural texts tell you this?

I’d think the then imposition of sheol/hades came to be a problem BECAUSE OF the sin, thus the continuance of separation beyond the physical realm. Prior to this, death [whenever that was to occur] without said separation in sheol/hades would simply have meant continuance with God, albeit in another realm of existence.

Sam: 3. We note that in the discussion on resurrection, Paul mentions a “spiritual body.” Jesus has a “spiritual body”.

Yeah… and?? As you noted… Jesus was able to do beyond the natural post death as he did pre death.

Sam: Adam, citing Genesis 2.7, had a “natural” body – and this is in reference to his body BEFORE the fall – BEFORE corruption and mortality kicked in. Now we are getting some place.

Well what place is that Sam? “BEFORE corruption and mortality kicked in” – thus BEFORE said corruption and mortality there logically according to your view must have been incorruption and immortality. You CANNOT lose what you don’t ALREADY have, and IF that’s what Adam had he didn’t need the ‘tree of life’ to ‘live forever’ however it is you try and qualify that away.

Yes. I used the same argument until I was presented with the fact that the reason Paul uses this metaphorically, is to accentuate the certainty that the dead will rise, and that if “Christ hasn’t been raised”, his “dying daily” is for no reason whatsoever, and he is “most miserable”. The hoops one jumps through to make things say something that just isn’t there. We have all been guilty of it at one time or another. Full preterism, for the most part, harps on audience relevance so much, but yet they are ill-equipped in applying that society and culture into their doctrines, and instead, presuppose something entirely foreign and pagan. Paul knew he was talking about dead bodies being glorified. It was his core belief system. The very core of the Jewish hope was the resurrection of the dead, and it was indeed theocratic as CBV likes to draw from, but it was an individualistic yearning, for life after death, structured around the theme of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, where the natural, corruptible body that we all have, is transformed into a glorified body, and putting on incorruptibility. FP’s dead body, whether IBD or CBV’s ethereal only, is a direct slap into the audiences faces who heard these sermons. And they said… “It’s like what? You mean my friends are going to be resurrected into a corporate body?” They wanted to come out of the grave like Christ did. Paul comforted them, and said, you will. You are raised now in Him, but you will be raised, like Him.

So there is no way to create something from nothing and it not have an appearance of history.

To me, this completely solves the problem. I can therefore trust God that He gave me the simple truth… 6000 years ago, He created everything in 6 days. Those things have an appearance of history. Bigger thins, have bigger appearances of history. But it is a history that did not happen.

Also, i didn’t say anything about “Seminary”.

As for this: “read a little bit here and a bit there. To pay attention would mean I check in all the time and actually cared enough to read everything you guys post and held what you wrote in high regard. Sorry, I don’t.”

There was really no need for you to tell me that. I already knew that you don’t read much of what we write. It comes out in the stupid questions you ask us over and over and over again. It is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS you read very little of what we write, else you wouldn’t ask those questions. Fact is, we have answered these questions. Over and over again. We have offered rock solid refutations of full preterism. But you wouldn’t know that, would you?

The poster writes, “I therefore am already sinless living in a world where sin does not exist.” Perhaps he is using a redacted version of the inspired text. A version which doesn’t contain, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 1 John 1:8. It gets even worse for the poster as v.10 goes on to claim, “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

God Bless,

Here is how Augustine put it,

Chapter 2 [II.]—If Adam Had Not Sinned, He Would Never Have Died.

“They who say that Adam was so formed that he would even without any demerit of sin have died, not as the penalty of sin, but from the necessity of his being, endeavour indeed to refer that passage in the law, which says: “On the day ye eat thereof ye shall surely die,”211 not to the death of the body, but to that death of the soul which takes place in sin. It is the unbelievers who have died this death, to whom the Lord pointed when He said, “Let the dead bury their dead.”212 Now what will be their answer, when we read that God, when reproving and sentencing the first man after his sin, said to him, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return?”213 For it was not in respect of his soul that he was “dust,” but clearly by reason of his body, and it was by the death of the self-same body that he was destined to “return to dust.” Still, although it was by reason of his body that he was dust, and although he bare about the natural body in which he was created, he would, if he had not sinned, have been changed into a spiritual body, and would have passed into the incorruptible state, which is promised to the faithful and the saints, without the peril of death. And for this issue we not only are conscious in ourselves of having an earnest desire, but we learn it from the apostle’s intimation, when he says: “For in this we groan, longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven; if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality may be swallowed up of life.” 215 Therefore, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have been divested of his body, but would have been clothed upon with immortality and incorruption, that “mortality might have been swallowed up of life;” that is, that he might have passed from the natural body into the spiritual body”.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.x.iii.ii.html

God Bless,

As I keep saying to every full pret I come in contact with, I will say to you as well. There is no such term called covenant “sin” death as the death of Adam, having existed anywhere in human recorded history. You guys are fighting a losing battle. For the thousands of years of human existence, Pagan, Hebrew and Christian have all defined it the same. Physical death, coupled with spiritual separation from God. You know why, because each successive generation preserves the definition and doctrine, ever since…..Adam, until who? Max King? Now it’s one or the other? Careful Rich. We have all been there, thinking we believed the same things you are so passionate about now. It’s a lie. It isn’t Max King’s fault. He didn’t lie. He just had a revelation, that may have come from the wrong source. That ground is a slippery slope. Please pray about it, and ask God, not your heart or mind, or conscience or whatever else….ask God, and wait.

As for the old problem of immortality (God alone is immortal – incapable of dying). Adam was capable of dying. So, the question is asked, if Adam were created without natural death, and had he not disobeyed, would he have lived forever without eating from the Tree of Life? And, if that is so, wouldn’t that be a contradiction? Why would he need eternal life if, in fact, he would have lived forever anyway (had he not sinned)?

Sounds like a real problem, huh? Something the Full Preterist hooks you in with. At first site, it does look like a real puzzler. “Lest he eat of it and live forever”. The issue, then, is that physical death would not have been a threat since he was going to die naturally anyway, had he never disobeyed. See where they go with this? “Death” must be enitrely defined as “alienation”. And that happend “the day” he ate. Sounds reasonable, right? Sure it does.

However, when you start questioning it, looking at it (oops, right, Rich said I was “blind” – I don’t question things…apparently I can’t even question my Full Preterism!) at a different angle, the argument begins to lose muster.

1. “You shall surely die” is repeated several times in capital crimes in Torah. However, since all criminals are going to naturally die anyway, what “threat” was this? Early death? Does the fact that we naturally die rob capital punishment of its power?

2. Adam was, indeed, created as a creature that could live forever. Had he never disobeyed God, and never eaten of the Tree of Life, he would have lived forever. However – and this is a big however – if he already had this NATURALLY, why would he have to eat from a Tree that would give him “life eternal”? If he had this NATURALLY….SPIRITUALLY….ah, now we are getting some place. Eternal life is something God has (He is the Eternal One). There was something, then, in terms of QUALITY that distinguished Adam’s NATURAL life. Adam was made to dwell with God, and God to dwell with Adam. And, where is that “dwelling” of God? “Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool”. How, then, would Adam ever be able to be in the “space” or ‘place” of God, where God resides in the highest heaven? Was he created with THIS kind of “life”? No.

3. We note that in the discussion on resurrection, Paul mentions a “spiritual body.” Jesus has a “spiritual body”. Adam, citing Genesis 2.7, had a “natural” body – and this is in reference to his body BEFORE the fall – BEFORE corruption and mortality kicked in. Now we are getting some place. See, Adam was not created with a SPIRITUAL BODY. Or, as we would speak of Christ, a glorified body (and Christ was able to do amazing things with his body even before resurrection). We don’t Adam doing ANY of these things. Nor could he. Therefore, the Tree of Life was a SUPERNATURAL quality of Life that Adam did not have, and if he had eaten of it, then, IN SPITE of the sentence of God (“dust you are and dust you shall return”), Adam would have been in a terrible state: An Eternal Sinner. Now we can see the actual danger and the act of mercy that God displays, for our own good, in cutting Adam from the Tree. The consequences of eating it in his state would have been devastating.

Therefore, Davo (and Rich), have posed no problem to what the Bible actually teaches. Death was physical punishment for a capital crime. God, the Judge, waived the punishment for a time and by this, established the gospel (the Promised Seed). He let them live (Eve is called the mother of the living – instead of the mother of the dying).

So, thanks Rich for bringing that up, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify the biblical position (shooting down another FP argument). Yes, I was blind….blind to FP. But those blinders came off…..

“Uh huh. “When you eat of it, ye shall certainly die covenant death.”

How is that any different than, “Uh huh. “When you eat of it, ye shall certainly die physical death.” ? I think Davo pointed out very well the problem with this supposed truth that Adam already had eternal physical life. oh, brother. This whole clinging to the physical has you all screwed up Sam, how can you not see it?

“What’s that? Is that when “covenant life” kicks in, cause it ain’t kickin’ in right now. Maybe when you lose your body, you’ll have have victory over sin.”

No, I have covenant life now. I am in Christ. Your problem is your entire existence depends on you achieving the ability to live a perfect sinless life. What ole Sammy can do or get to. How about it being about Christ and what has already done for you without you having to do a thing? He created, past tense, a world where righteousness dwells now Sam. I live in that world via being in Christ. I therefore am already sinless living in a world where sin does not exist. As Paul so rightfully stated, “but sin is not counted where there is no law”. Someday you just might understand what it means to live in Grace. Just listen to yourself, “Maybe when you lose your body, you’ll have victory over sin.” I have victory over sin NOW Sam! Evidently you don’t think you do. It’s clear you just can’t grasp Christ, what he means, and what he has accomplished for you on your behalf. All this talk about Reformed theology, the soverenity of God, the Grace of God, etc. etc. etc., yet they’re just words to you. I completely understand why you go back and forth from one theology to another. You just don’t get any of it. You’re like a person with a photographic memory. Sure they are able to recall everything they read, but understanding any of it is beyond them. Sure you’re able to recall vast amounts of information, but you truly don’t get any of it. This has become abundantly clear to me.

I can see this will go nowhere. Your eyes are so tightly closed/blinded, I will be wasting my time. I shouldn’t have even bothered posting that first comment. So, you know what. On second thought I will not get back to you. Just live in the world you’ve created for yourself, and I don’t mean your physical house you live in either.

Oh, and about the “covenant death” thing…we can have fun with that. “Ye shall certainly stone him to covenant death”. “Jesus died a covenant death for our sins”. What a hoot. You take care, now, hear?

Rich: I don’t know Jason, as I’ve never seen you on FB or this “back and forth” stuff you refer to on YouTube. Sorry, but I don’t follow you anywhere outside what you post here on RCM. And that’s only on the rare occasion I drop by.

Jason: I suppose that since it didn’t all happen at once, that that’s not good enough for you, eh?

Rich: I don’t really care if you do or don’t Jason. I merely watched your book burning video you posted a few days ago here at RCM. Not sure, but I don’t recall you saying anything about or implying you were going to be cutting back or your exchanges. In fact I thought you were pretty adamant about stopping altogether. Hmmm, guess I misunderstood what seemed so clear.

Jason: How about you? I could have sworn that i read from you on FB that you don’t pay any attention to RCM anymore. lol. Yeah, right.

Rich: not sure how you have read anything I post on FB as we’re surely not friends, and I think I’ve posted to a group maybe once, ever. You’re not stalking me are you? Plus, I’m not sure I said any such thing on FB, but who knows, as I check into Facebook about as much as I do RCM, and post even less. Probably once or twice every two weeks. The only posts I recall as of late might have been to a couple of Virgil’s posts. Concerning paying attention to RCM; I don’t pay much attention to RCM. That doesn’t mean I don’t check it once or twice every two or three weeks and read a little bit here and a bit there. To pay attention would mean I check in all the time and actually cared enough to read everything you guys post and held what you wrote in high regard. Sorry, I don’t. Because what you guys write these days isn’t worth reading, nor does any of it hold any merit. In fact, the stuff I see coming out of Sam these days is just plan laughable; thus I just don’t believe down in my heart he really believes the crap his putting out. He’s just trying his best to tote the Reformed line. As I said, I usually just shake my head in bewilderment and embarrassment. I also find it amazing the way others will say something is great just because it goes against Full Preterism. It could actually come from Benny Hinn, and if it was in response to anything Preterist, they would jump on its bandwagon and talk it up as something great. To be fair though, that happens on both sides. I’ve seen some full Preterism stuff get held up high too just because it was non-futurist.

Jason: But back to the point: if you were actually schooled in Christian thought

Rich: Ah, the schooled in thought argument. So unless once actually attends a seminary, they’re just ignorant and aren’t able to understand the Scriptures. One couldn’t just read all the same books and lean the same useless crap seminaries program people these days. No, you have to actually place yourself under some other man to make sure your ignorance doesn’t get in the way of thinking. We can’t have that after all. That would lead to questions we dare not ask like this whole substitution for physical death thingy you’re trying to wiggle out of.

Jason: , then you would know that saying that Christ substitutes for death SO THAT the Christian never dies was never what was taught to start with.

Rich: Maybe you should go back and read Sam’s words again. He was pretty clear. In fact, the clarity of his words was in direct response to what Green wrote. Sam wanted to make sure everyone knew exactly what substitution meant with no misunderstanding. So, I’ll refer you back again to what Sam said. I also find this rather funny. As I read your response, you seem to be trying to hold what “substitution” actually means (per Sam’s definition, which is correct), and at the same time wiggle around that meaning so it actually means something else at the same time. You see this is what happens when you hold to some error and have too much pride to admit it as error.

Jason: You are trying to insist – and doing so only because you have to squeeze everything into your tiny little ad70 box – that somehow our view demands that in order for the substitution to work, we can’t ever die.

Rich: Maybe because 1) it all does fit into an AD70 box, and 2) because that is what SUBSTITUTION means, just read Sam’s words. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand a simple word Jason.

Jason: Well, that’s your irrational argument, not ours. Victory over physical death doesn’t have to mean that i never physically die.

Rich: Oh, now we’re going to restate it as “victory over”, from having someone else succumb to it in my place (substitute) so I don’t have to. Interesting. Very sneaking Jason. Redirection. That’s the road I’d take if I were you too.

Jason: Jesus was victorious over physical death. How? By never dying? Nope. He resurrected.

Rich: First, notice the presupposition that the victory was over physical death, when in fact, the death being addressed throughout the Scriptures is covenant death. Aren’t Jesus’ own words that his physical resurrection was nothing more than a sign. It was to prove his victory over the death that matters. Second, notice you continue on with the redirection from “substitute” to victory over.

Jason: Get it?

Rich: Oh, I get Jason. Find it very humorous.

About the 24 hr days, the Hebrews thought so for thousands of years. Why should we, interpret them any different? I understand, in light of “science’ and “evidence”, it is difficult to reconcile it, believe me, I struggle with this alot. But, history, as recorded, in the Jews, claim it is the same as YEC claims. So far we have been around close to 6000 years and creation was done in 7 days. Why? Ignorance? Or divine enlightenment? This is something of a struggle for many of us, and I believe it will be for some time.